Freedom of expression is a central tenet of almost every modern society. This freedom however often comes into conflict with other rights, and can be misused and exploited. New media – especially on the internet – and new forms of media intrusion bring added complexity to old tensions between the individual’s rights to reputation and privacy on the one hand, and freedom of expression and the freedom of the press on the other.
How should free speech be balanced with the right to reputation? This question lies at the heart of defamation law. In the following videos, Lord Neuberger and Dr Matthew Collins QC discuss current challenges in defamation law, and the implications of recent changes to legislation enacted in the Defamation Act 2013. Lord Neuberger highlights urgent issues including privacy, confidentiality, data protection, freedom of information, and the Internet.
In this video, he draws attention to recent high-profile events such as the Leveson Inquiry and the phone-hacking trials, and points up key features of the new legislation.
Click here to view the embedded video.
Dr Matthew Collins QC outlines his perspective on the likely long-term impact of the 2013 Act.
Click here to view the embedded video.
The Rt Hon the Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury Kt PC is President of the Supreme Court of the United Court of the United Kingdom. Dr Matthew Collins QC is a barrister based in Melbourne, Australia. He is also a Senior Fellow at the University of Melbourne, a door tenant at One Brick Court chambers in London, and the author of Collins on Defamation.
Subscribe to the OUPblog via
email or
RSS.
Subscribe to only law articles on the OUPblog via
email or
RSS.
The post Free speech, reputation, and the Defamation Act 2013 appeared first on OUPblog.
How can a society balance both the freedom of expression, including the freedom of the press, with the individual’s right to reputation? Defamation law seeks to address precisely this delicate equation. Especially in the age of the internet, where it is possible to publish immediately and anonymously, these concerns have become even more pressing and complex. The Defamation Act 2013 has introduced some of the most important changes to this area in recent times, including the defence for honest opinion, new internet-specific reforms protecting internet publishers, and attempts to curb an industry of “libel tourism” in the U.K.
Dr Matthew Collins SC introduces the Defamation Act 2013, and discusses the most important reforms and their subsequent implications.
Click here to view the embedded video.
Click here to view the embedded video.
Click here to view the embedded video.
Click here to view the embedded video.
Dr Matthew Collins SC is a barrister based in Melbourne, Australia. He is a Senior Fellow at the University of Melbourne, a door tenant at One Brick Court chambers in London, and the author of Collins On Defamation.
Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only law articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
The post The Defamation Act 2013: reflections and reforms appeared first on OUPblog.
John A. Neuenschwander is professor emeritus of history at Carthage College and the municipal 
judge for the City of Kenosha, Wisconsin. He lectures nationwide on the legal aspects of oral history. His new book, A Guide to Oral History and the Law, explains all the critical legal issues, including legal release agreements; copyright; privacy; screening, editing, and sealing procedures to protect against defamation; the protection of sealed and anonymous interviews from courtroom disclosure; the role of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs); teaching considerations; and the new issues raised by the use of interviews on the Internet. In the article below he looks at defamation cases that involve professional responsibility. Check out his other OUPblog posts here.
In 2007 the California Supreme Court decided the case of Hebrew Academy v. Goldman, 42 Cal. 4th 883 (2007). The case is noteworthy because it arose from the publication of an oral history transcript by the Regional Oral History Office at the University of California, Berkeley. What is also noteworthy is that the alleged defamation involved the professional reputation of the founder of a school. While the media always plays up defamation cases that involve claims of criminal activity or immorality, there are numerous lawsuits filed each year by individuals who believe that their standing in the workplace was damaged by false statements about their professional skills or decision making.
Since oral historians on all levels regularly undertake interviews with business leaders, professionals, and workers; it is important that these interviews be carefully audited for potentially defamatory statements. In other words, just because an interviewee is not accusing someone of criminal activity or immoral conduct, statements that undermine a person’s reputation in the workplace can be just as harmful.
In 2009 a number of cases involving professional reputation were heard in courts across the nation. The following three cases have been selected to spotlight the types of statements that can lead someone to file a lawsuit for defamation. In Ma’Ayergi and Associates LLC v. Pro Search Inc., 115 Conn. App. 662 (Conn. App. 2009), a recently acquired business partner quietly spread the word to the plaintiff’s clients that he and his employees were incompetent to handle many of key problems because they lacked the necessary qualifications. In Ferguson v. Williams & Hunt Inc. 2009 WL23461635 Utah (unpublished), a partner in a law firm who was terminated for overbilling the firm’s major client sued for defamation based on a communication by the other partners to the client that the former partner’s billing statements could not be trusted for their accuracy. The final case, Richards v. Construction and General Bldg. Laborers Local 79, 2009 WL3224157 New York (unreported), involved a claim of defamation emanating from a small billboard at a construction site and leaflets that were handed out by union members. The plaintiff, the head of a corporati
